From: Hugo Duncan (hugoduncan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-23 14:46:30
On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:13:14 +0100, Boris Schäling <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I read your library requirements.
> I don't agree that a socket library should wrap rather than invent.
Agreed that the C++ library should leverage the power of C++,
but we could do this while remaining in some way familiar. The
intent is to provide a clean C++ interface.
Certainly at a higher level some form of smart address resolution
should be provided, but I don't think that obviates the need for
seperate address classes for seperate protocols, for those people
who do not want to pay for functionality that they do not need.
eg. for address resolution - should it also resolve decnet addresses? osi addreses?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk